We need to add python-mock to build/root.json, sugar group (chroot branch).
My fault for forgetting about it when approving the pull request, but I
can't fix it myself for a few days.
--
Daniel Narvaez
___
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel@lists.su
Hey,
A few things
* From the output this seems different from Gonzalo crash.
* Very very unlikely to be a sugar-build bug.
* Your traces point to a memory bug, perhaps in pygobject or lower (but
I've seen sugar python code causing something similar by using API which is
not supposed to be used fr
http://bugs.sugarlabs.org/ticket/4530
On 23 July 2013 01:24, Suraj K S wrote:
> *filed a bug report a few weeks back.
>
>
> On 23 July 2013 01:23, Suraj K S wrote:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> I encountered this too and filed a few weeks back bug.
>>
>>
>> On 23 July 2013 01:18, Martin Abente wrote:
Hi Martin,
I encountered this too and filed a few weeks back bug.
On 23 July 2013 01:18, Martin Abente wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
>
> I am having the same error [1] running on a clean fc19.x86_64 installation.
>
> To reproduce it:
> 1. Create one (Pippy) entry in the journal.
> 2. Go to Journal vi
*filed a bug report a few weeks back.
On 23 July 2013 01:23, Suraj K S wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I encountered this too and filed a few weeks back bug.
>
>
> On 23 July 2013 01:18, Martin Abente wrote:
>
>> Hello Daniel,
>>
>> I am having the same error [1] running on a clean fc19.x86_64
>> insta
Hello Daniel,
I am having the same error [1] running on a clean fc19.x86_64 installation.
To reproduce it:
1. Create one (Pippy) entry in the journal.
2. Go to Journal view.
3. Hover your cursor above the entry.
4. Sugar shuts down.
Postmortem, looking at the log, found other suspicious errors l
Patch attached
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>
>> Can you test the attached patch and confirm solve this problem?
>>
>> Gonzalo
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Martin Abente Lahaye <
>> notificati
On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> Can you test the attached patch and confirm solve this problem?
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Martin Abente Lahaye <
> notificati...@github.com> wrote:
>
>> Under certain circumstances, title key is not present in metad
On Monday, 22 July 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> there seem to be a bit of confusion on what distributions are supported
>> in sugar-build. Let me try to clear it up.
>>
>> - The master branch supports the same distributions i
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Buildbot is not supposed to build changes fom master (it's setup for the
> chroot branch already). I'll fix it if we need to land more changes on
> master before merging the chroot branch.
>
> Anyway not a problem with your patch! :)
>
>
gr
Buildbot is not supposed to build changes fom master (it's setup for the
chroot branch already). I'll fix it if we need to land more changes on
master before merging the chroot branch.
Anyway not a problem with your patch! :)
On Monday, 22 July 2013, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Thanks!
>
>
But it seems to have made trouble
http://buildbot.sugarlabs.org/builders/quick/builds/34
>
> On Monday, 22 July 2013, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
>>
>>> Cool.
Thanks!
On Monday, 22 July 2013, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Daniel Narvaez
>
> > wrote:
>
>> Cool. The real fix is to add a tag property to sugar-runner in
>> build/modules.json, to point to 26820cd391 . I'm far from a keyboard for
>> another few days, so
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there seem to be a bit of confusion on what distributions are supported in
> sugar-build. Let me try to clear it up.
>
> - The master branch supports the same distributions it has been supporting
> for the last few months, as docume
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Cool. The real fix is to add a tag property to sugar-runner in
> build/modules.json, to point to 26820cd391 . I'm far from a keyboard for
> another few days, so a pull request would be very appreciated!
>
>
done
>
> On Monday, 22 July 201
Hi,
there seem to be a bit of confusion on what distributions are supported in
sugar-build. Let me try to clear it up.
- The master branch supports the same distributions it has been supporting
for the last few months, as documented on developer.sugarlabs.org.
- The chroot branch supports virtual
Yes Adam, reading Accept-Language in your WSGI app is the way to go.
Browse activates this LibSoup setting in the session:
https://developer.gnome.org/libsoup/stable/SoupSession.html#SoupSession--accept-language-auto
2013/7/19 Chris Leonard :
> Let's ask sugar-devel to field this question
>
> cjl
Cool. The real fix is to add a tag property to sugar-runner in
build/modules.json, to point to 26820cd391 . I'm far from a keyboard for
another few days, so a pull request would be very appreciated!
On Monday, 22 July 2013, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Danie
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
> Try "git checkout HEAD~1" in the sugar-runner dir. Does that fix it?
>
>
It worked, thanks Daniel :-)
>
> On Monday, 22 July 2013, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was trying to run sugar with ./osbuild. I got the following erro
Try "git checkout HEAD~1" in the sugar-runner dir. Does that fix it?
On Monday, 22 July 2013, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was trying to run sugar with ./osbuild. I got the following error,
>
> $ run
> Type Shift-Alt-Q inside sugar to close.
>
> Command failed: sugar-runner --home-dir
>
Fedora 18 is supported. It's use_chroot=false which is supported only on
F19.
Anyway if you are looking for the last commit where F18 is supported
without a chroot that is master (of both osbuild and sugar-build).
On Monday, 22 July 2013, Gonzalo Odiard wrote:
> Is really, really bad if Fedora 1
21 matches
Mail list logo
